In titling my posts, I've realized that I'm unintentionally starting to create a pattern. They are all questions. I'm starting to question everything I thought I knew about cyberspace. The internet is not necessarily this vast open expanse that I thought it was or, if it is, it may not always be. But I also have to question whether or not the internet should really be completely unregulated. Whether it's really that simple. Now, before anyone goes up in arms, let me explain.
While I was reading Lessig's Open Code and Open Societies and Barlow's A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, one major thought kept striking me over and over. Both readings suggest that the internet needs to be a place of freedom, deregulation, expression and innovation. For the most part I agree with this but I see one problem. Contrary to what Barlow's style of writing suggests, the internet is not an entity unto itself. The internet depends on humans. Everything that the internet is was imagined, created and published by people. People are not perfect. People need reasonable constraints placed upon them. These constraints serve a general good.
In fact, people already have some constraints placed upon them and I believe, in some situations, these constraints should also apply to the world of cyberspace. Take Lessig's example of iCraveTV in Canada. This site served to rebroadcast television shows via the internet without consenting the original broadcaster; a practice that is legal in Canada but not in the United States. When the site did not sufficiently contain access to only Canadians, a lawsuit was issued in the United States. Lessig suggests that such a process of "zoning cyberspace" based on geography is wrong because it will only lead to further control of the internet.
But what about U.S. television broadcasting networks and companies? They clearly have rights over the shows they produce and the laws protecting those rights should be upheld even if it means placing constraints on cyberspace. It is people that are logging on and gaining access to this content and it is other people who are being cheated out of proper distribution of their content. People should be subject to the laws in place no matter the domain they affect. Lessig would probably say that such shows, once they are aired, should become "public domain." I'm not saying that this assertion is wrong but for the time being that is not the case and it has necessary consequences.
In general, I don't believe that most content, such as social sites, blogs and news need to be regulated on the internet. However, if the distribution of certain content clearly violates existing laws and the rights of other people or companies then those distributing it illegally should be held accountable. As laws vary between countries, this may sometimes make "zoning" practices necessary until the issue can be resolved. The internet is still a new and evolving domain. Until common practices and values are established around the world, these issues will continue to arise. "Zoning" need not be a permanent solution, but for the time being it is the one we have.
It is true that the Internet can be seen as rather new because, unfortunately, a lot of people don’t have access to Internet or, worse, don't even know how to type. Still, for others, such as me and most UR students, Internet has become something extremely common. Without Internet, our lives would simply be devastated. So, it's not something revolutionary. We use it for everything, and we expect the Internet to be open.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why you might be in favor of some constraints. It is obvious that downloading movies from free can cause serious problems to film studios. However, the example with iCraveTV was quite different. iCraveTV was legal and it simply brought content within easy reach to its watchers, and for free. That is actually the issue: Hollywood didn't approve of free TV because it would have a negative impact on their profits. This is the only cause, because if the site itself had been illegal, it would have been shut down for this reason.
I think this example shows the limitations of free speech. This is what Lessig argues. He doesn't actually tackle the subject of the materials displayed on the Internet but the idea that Internet was created open and it should be kept that way.
My eternal gripe with copyright holders is that they leave it in place too long, especially after the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's passage, and that they charge too much for content.
ReplyDeleteThat said, downloading a film for $2.99 is a price point I like. But what if Warner Brothers decides to go after the Net Neutrality principle in court, as Verizon is now doing? If they succeed in killing it, we'll probably pay more monthly to download films from Netflix or Amazon or iTunes.
Let the market and the technology set the price, not those who form vertical monopolies. That has an evil history in many other industries.
I am not so sure that we want to go there. It smacks too much of the media empires of old that Wu discusses in such depth.